More on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post editorializes:
“President Obama’s refusal so far to authorize Keystone XL has little rational basis. … Attracting foreign investment in projects that will create U.S. jobs requires predictable regulatory procedures. The way to encourage the efficient extraction and delivery of the oil that the United States will require for decades is to make clear that government won’t use the issue as a political football.”
The editorial makes a couple of other points:
Opponents of Canadian oil sands (and the Keystone XL) are mistaken to believe that stopping the pipeline will keep 170 billion barrels of oil in the ground – because Canada has other means to get the oil to market, as well as other markets willing to buy it.
Political skirmishing in Washington has been detrimental to overall progress on the project.
Meanwhile, POLITICO has this guest opinion piece by Karl Rove, pointing to the administration’s Keystone XL rejection as a prime example of a self-inflicted inability to create jobs:
“Exhibit A is the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands and North Dakota’s prolific Bakken field to Gulf Coast refineries, factories and chemical plants. This would have created tens of thousands of private-sector jobs and reduced U.S. dependence on [imports]. … No matter. Extreme environmentalists opposed this vital infrastructure project. Rather than offend them, President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline’s construction.”
The two pieces help underscore the point that there are no good reasons to hold up the Keystone XL project, and that the administration is squandering a great opportunity to create jobs and help strengthen U.S. energy security. As the Post says, the president’s refusal to approve this shovel-ready project makes little rational sense.
An all-of-the-above energy approach must include oil and natural gas because it is our primary energy source now and into the future. The Keystone XL pipeline would be an integral part of such a strategy, which could see all of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada by 2024.
Join the energy conversation at facebook.com/Energy.Tomorrow